Throughout the Cold War era, Japan adhered to the foreign policy framework outlined by its first Prime Minister, Shigeru Yoshida, during the occupation years. This “Yoshida Doctrine” encompassed a comprehensive security policy that advocated minimal military rearmament for Japan and prioritized economic recovery. It was based on a security alliance with the US. Operating as a junior partner in this bilateral relationship, Tokyo acknowledged the unequal terms of the security treaty established in 1951, during the final stages of the US occupation of post-war Japan, which was later ratified alongside the San Francisco Peace Treaty in the following year. However, the increasing criticism of the initial security pact’s origins and imbalance in the 1950s led to the negotiation of a revised treaty, finalized in Washington in January 1960, which addressed many of its shortcomings.

The new chapter and the Yoshida Doctrine

The new treaty clarified the US’s defense commitment to Japan (Article V) and recognized the necessity of mutual consultation on security matters (Article VI). Article VI of the security treaty stipulated that the US forces could use military bases and areas in Japan to “maintain the security of Japan” and “preserve international peace and security in the Far East”. During the entire Cold War period, Japan adhered to a foreign and security policy aligned with and supportive of US policies, showing limited interest in regional multilateral security structures. This was primarily due to the sufficiency of the Yoshida Doctrine, which relied on the US for security matters and emphasized an export-oriented, international trade-focused recovery strategy. This approach obviated the need for multilateral and bilateral partnerships, and embracing multilateral political and security institutions would have weakened US-Japan bilateralism. Additionally, the absence of a shared perception of threat and the diverse political, economic, cultural, and social systems within the region contributed to the inappropriateness of a multilateral security approach for Japan. Another reason for Japan’s indifference to multilateral security approaches during this period stemmed from historical suspicions harbored by many countries in the region regarding Japan. Any endeavor towards multilateral security would necessitate Japan taking on a larger leadership role, which was met with resistance by many countries. For instance, proposals like establishing a Pacific Treaty Organization (PATO) counterpart to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the 1960s, and the concept of Pan-Pacific Cooperation, reflecting Prime Minister Masayoshi Ohira’s efforts to play a more substantial political and economic role in Southeast Asia during the 1970s and 1980s, were met with negative reactions. The issue lay in the perception that Japan’s increased role would translate to a reduced role for the US, implying that the US was ceding regional control to Japan. Consequently, throughout the Cold War, Japan’s regional security policy hinged on the US-Japan bilateral security alliance, aligned with the principles of the Yoshida doctrine, and did not consider multilateral security as a viable alternative approach. With the collapse of the bipolar system, the regional security landscape in the Asia-Pacific region underwent a transformation.

Evolvement of Diplomatic Relations

From the late-1980s to the mid-1990s, improved diplomatic relations among regional countries positively influenced regional dynamics. Notably, Sino-Japanese relations, strained since the 1960s, were restored in 1990. China also improved relations with several ASEAN countries, including Indonesia, Singapore, and Vietnam. The Soviet Union and its successor, Russia, improved relations with Japan and South Korea. Furthermore, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Mongolia and Cam Ranh Bay played a significant role in reducing regional tensions in East Asia. In the eyes of Tokyo’s decision-makers, this evolving international environment created opportunities for regional cooperation on political and security matters. However, despite these perceived positive developments, the post-Cold War era retained certain security risks and uncertainties. The Taiwan Strait and Korean Peninsula conflicts, the Cambodian issue, disputes in the East China Sea (ECS) and South China Sea (SCS), as well as unresolved disputes such as the Northern Territories issue, persisted. Japan’s historical baggage from World War II and the ongoing rivalry among regional countries fostered a sense of insecurity and distrust. Concerns also arose that the diminishing influence of the US and the Soviet Union could lead to a shift in regional power dynamics, triggering a potentially dangerous competition for regional dominance and resulting geopolitical uncertainties.

The end of an era

The end of bipolarity and the Cold War, coupled with arms build-up in East Asia, China’s military growth, improved Sino-Russian relations, and the potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, transformed the environment that had previously hindered the development of multilateral security mechanisms during the Cold War into a conducive setting.

All these factors prompted Japan to consider external developments in the regional security architecture. In a region characterized by security uncertainties, Japan recognized the need to reassess its regional security policy. The primary threat to Japan’s security was no longer the Soviet Union, but rather the prevailing regional uncertainties. Addressing these uncertainties required a broader security policy that extended beyond the confines of the US-Japan bilateral alliance. Although Japan continued to regard its alliance with the US as pivotal to its security, it began to embrace a new security approach referred to as the “multi-tiered approach,” alternatively termed the multi-faceted or multi-layered approach.

Japan’s Post-Cold War Multi-Tiered Security Strategy

In the early 1990s many Japanese decision-makers grew dissatisfied with the disparity between Japan’s economic might and its political power and security role on the global stage. Certain bureaucrats and politicians believed that Japan should assume a role in shaping the evolving world order. As the Cold War ended, the demise of US-Soviet rivalry and the transformation in Eastern Europe were anticipated to bring about changes in the Asia-Pacific region. This significant shift prompted Japan to reevaluate its stance on regional security multilateralism. During the early 1990s, Yukio Satoh, Director General of the Information Analysis, Research and Planning Bureaus at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), along with other ministry officials, introduced and conceptualized the multi-tiered security approach.

The new policy’s pillars

This approach viewed stability and security as multifaceted mechanisms through various arrangements and frameworks. Broadly, the multi-tiered approach comprises four pillars. The first tier emphasizes bilateralism, rooted in the US-Japan alliance.

The second-tier centers on multilateralism, focusing on collaborative security efforts among Asia-Pacific nations to tackle security concerns. This tier facilitates the exchange of ideas, approaches, and thoughts among member states to promote cooperation, mutual understanding, and communication within the region.

The third tier involves minilateralism or supplementalism, functioning through case-by-case and ad hoc arrangements among select countries to address specific security-related issues rather than the involvement of all regional countries.

The fourth tier concentrates on economic and environmental issues unrelated to security but believed to foster favorable conditions for long-term regional security and political relations specifies that the multi-tiered security approach assigns distinct functions to different tiers with a hierarchical emphasis on defense and deterrence functions.

However, the roles of these four tiers are mutually complementary. He contends that several external and internal factors contributed to Japan’s adoption of a multi-tiered security approach after the Cold War. These factors include a shift in the regional security order and structural changes, Japan’s aspiration for greater global power status, historical legacies in the region, and constitutional limitations. A primary impetus for Japan’s adoption of the multi-tiered security approach appears to have been the alteration in the regional security order. In April 1990, under the Bush administration, a report outlining the Asia-Pacific framework announced the US’s intention to withdraw around 14-15,000 military personnel from East Asia by the end of 1992. This reduction included 5-6,000 personnel from US bases in Japan, marking the initial phase of troop reduction. Subsequent stages of troop reduction followed. Negotiations concerning the closure of specific bases in the Philippines and the repatriation of troops from bases in Okinawa and Korea signaled to Japanese policymakers a changing regional security order and structure. The reduction of US troops in East Asia marked a significant departure from the nearly half-century-old US-led hub-and spokes security arrangement, and it signified a shift in US attention away from East Asia. In response, Japanese policymakers began to consider the necessity of incorporating multilateral security cooperation alongside the existing security approach rooted in the US bilateral alliance. Another key driver behind Japan’s adoption of the multi-tiered security approach was the reassessment of its security strategy following the Cold War, fueled by a desire for major power recognition. Despite Japan’s economic ascendancy by the late 1980s, its security status remained confined to a regional sphere. This discrepancy between economic and security realms underscored Japan’s low profile and reactive stance in foreign policy. Consequently, Japanese policymakers recognized the need to redefine Japan’s identity in the post-Cold War landscape. In their view, Japan should transition from a position of small-middle power diplomacy to major power diplomacy, actively contributing to shaping the emerging world order during this transitional period. This transformational role involved fostering the East Asian regional order. In this context, multilateralism was a fitting approach within Japan’s foreign policy toolkit to allay neighboring countries’ concerns regarding its new security role. Moreover, multilateralism offered a platform for regional countries to voice concerns about Japan’s benign intentions. This coincided with a new approach in Japan’s national security discussions that sought to address Asia-Pacific security matters holistically, transcending the American hub-and-spoke system to ensure regional peace and stability. This approach entailed engaging in political dialogues on shared security concerns, deepening political and security cooperation among regional countries alongside the pre-existing bilateralism.

The Haunting past

The significance of Japan’s imperial past and its implications for neighbors that suffered under Japanese militarism, such as the Koreas and China. These countries remain sensitive to the possibility of a resurgence of Japanese militarism. This historical baggage necessitates Japan to adopt a novel approach to its regional policy. Concerns emerged regionally as the American military presence dwindled in Asia. The prospect of Japan, an economic powerhouse, seeking an independent military capability raised apprehensions. Neighboring Asian countries worried that Japan’s heightened power would fill the void left by retreating US forces, leading to the conversion of economic influence into political and military dominance. Consequently, Japan needed a new security approach to allay these concerns and demonstrate a commitment to eschewing militarism. Another influential factor pushing Japan toward the multi-tiered security approach stemmed from constitutional limitations, specifically Article 9 of Japan’s constitution.

However, despite these reinterpretation attempts, Article 9 does not authorize the establishment of a standing army or participation in collective defense initiatives. Moreover, the activities of the SDF (Self Defense Forces) are restricted to Japan’s territorial boundaries. Sending SDF personnel abroad is only permissible for UN-approved rear-area support and peacekeeping operations in challenging conditions. Many Japanese schoolers argue that these limitations led Japan to prioritize its bilateral security relationship with the US and promote regional cooperation and the development of multilateral institutions. Furthermore, strong bilateral ties with the US make multilateral arrangements more advantageous for Japan, as they tie the US to the Asia-Pacific region.

Conclusion

The pursuit of major power status enabled Japan to assume an active role in building the regional security order. The decision by the US to reduce its East Asia-based troops prompted Japanese policymakers to recognize a shift in the regional security order. Japan needed a novel conceptual framework for its foreign and security policy in response. Yet, this new conceptualization had to account for historical legacies and constitutional constraints. Historical legacies informed policymakers about the viability of multilateral cooperation, while constitutional constraints shaped the significance and functions assigned to collective protection and regional security maintenance. The term “multi-ness” in the approach allowed Japan flexibility to engage with various regional cooperation mechanisms and groupings, provided they complemented the importance of the US alliance structure.

Sources:

Japan’s Post-Cold War Security Policy: Bringing Back the Normal State: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25798581

The U.S.-Japan Security Alliance: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-japan-security-alliance

Japanese Security Policy in the Post-Cold War Era: Threat Perceptions and Strategic Options: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2645056

JAPAN’S FOREIGN SECURITY RELATIONS AND POLICIES, Christopher W. Huhes: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/76449926.pdf

The Transformation of Japan’s Security Strategy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI02hGua97Y

Enabling Japan’s security policies: The role of domestic institutions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3KhCRv0hlk

Japanese Security Strategy: Decreasing Not Demise of the Yoshida Doctrine: https://www.jipsblog.com/post/japanese-security-strategy-decreasing-not-demise-of-the-yoshida-doctrine

More Japanese worry their country may go to war, government poll shows: https://www.stripes.com/theaters/asia_pacific/2023-03-08/war-japan-china-russia-north-korea-9421618.html

Diplomatic Bluebook of Japan 1990, 1991: https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/other/bluebook/index.html